Difference between home market and international host market have been identified, as an instrumental variable that influences multiple phenomena for a business such as product, packaging and marketing. One of the most indispensable constituents that create this difference is Culture as it shapes markets around the world.
Schwartz's value dimensions, which he argues include Hofstede's dimensions (Schwartz, 1994), offer an alternative way to compute cultural distance that may be more appropriate in some contexts Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006). Jackson (2001) argued that Hofstede's individualism dimension is oversimplified and suggested that Schwartz's egalitarian dimension might be more appropriate in explaining the ethical attributions in countries classified as more individualist. Steenkamp (2001) found that Schwartz values included elements of culture that are not captured by Hofstede's values.Research suggests that Schwartz's cultural values capture more aspects of culture than those of Hofstede's (Kagitcibasi, 1997; Schwartz and Ros, 1995; Steenkamp, 2001). For instance, Schwartz and Ros (1995) found that Western European countries and the USA, categorized as individualistic cultures according to Hofstede (1980), were significantly different on six of Schwartz's (1994) seven cultural values. Thus, Schwartz's values may have the potential to explain greater cultural variation than Hofstede's values.The empirical structure of value items in schwartz country-level analysis overlapped considerably with the individual-level structure, but the match was far from perfect Fischer et al 2010.Schwartz's frameworks have been praised as contemporary, theoretically sound, and for using sophisticated and systematic sampling techniques (Uhlenbruck, 2004; Drogendijk and Slangen, 2006). According to Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006) , in a trade context, Schwartz's values play a more significant role.
Magnusson et al (2008). Despite its significance and apparent strong theoretical basis, Hofstede's framework has received abundant criticism. Hofstede's dimensions have been questioned since they were extracted from an existing internal company survey that was developed with limited theoretical grounding (McSweeney, 2002). Hofstede describes culture as ‘mental programming', as ‘software of the mind', as ‘subjective' (1980a). Hofstede framework constitutes a simple, practicle, and usable shortcut to the integration of culture into studies, Soares, Farhangmehr and Shoham (2007) . Hofstede's (1980) framework, despite being lauded as the most influential (Kirkman et al., 2006; Oyserman et al., 2002), have been criticized for being a theoretical, methodologically flawed, outdated, lacking generalisability and too condensed to capture culture (McSweeney, 2002; Shenkar, 2001; Smith et al., 2002).conceptually flawed, and unable to accurately and consistently predict firm behaviour in international markets (Harzing, 2004; Kirkman et al., 2006; Shenkar, 2001), There are specific contexts in which cultural distance scores based on Hofstede's dimensions are appropriate and other contexts in which other forms of cultural distance may be more appropriate Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006). Many of his subsequent publications are robust, at times aggressive, defences of his 1980 methods and findings(McSweeney, 2002).Hofstede claims that regardless of divisions of every national on many grounds, population somehow shares a unique culture. By the term national culture Hofstede means the culture of a country or state and not necessarily of a nation. For example, although the state ‘Great Britain' is composed of three nations – England, Scotland and Wales – Hofstede treats it as a single entity with a single ‘national' culture(McSweeney, 2002).Using a large number of respondents does not of itself guarantee representativeness (Bryman, 1988) Hofstede's analyses were revolutionary in their time but do not quite meet today's standards. Subsequent research has still not tested the similarity of value structures across levels directly (Fischer, et al 2010). Hofstede project could be dismissed as a misguided attempt to measure the unmeasurable (MacIntyre, 1971; Smelser, 1992). The country scores on Hofstede's dimensions of national culture have changed over time (Beugelsdijk,Maseland and Hoorn 2015).
Hofstede fifth and sixth dimensions were added later and their scores were based on items and data collected from the World value Survey (Beugelsdijk,Maseland and Hoorn 2015). The contemporary relevance of Hofstede's data have been questioned given that the data were collected in the late 1960s but (Beugelsdijk,Maseland and Hoorn 2015) argues that Just because Hofstede's country scores appears outdated, they have not become irrelevant. Magnusson et al (2008) despite significant criticism levied against the Hofstede measure, it is highly correlated with more recent operationalization's of CD/ID. Magnusson et al (2008) suggest that the more contemporary cultural frameworks have provided only limited advancements compared with Hofstede's original work. Two primary criticisms against Hofstede's framework has been the lack of theoretical grounding (McSweeney, 2002) and the stability of culture since the time Hofstede collected his data. But Oyserman et al.'s (2002) review concluded that culture may be even more stable than Hofstede himself believed to be the case. This is further supported by notable large‐scale replications supporting Hofstede's original work (Helmreich and Merritt, 1998; Hoppe, 1990).Despite claims that the Hofstede index is fatally flawed, Magnusson et al (2008) Hofstede compares favourably to other indices. Fischer et al 2010Hofstede's analyses were revolutionary in their time but do not quite meet today's standards.
According to Magnusson et al (2008) Schwartz (1994) and Hofstede both share a similar conceptual view of culture and consider each culture, i.e. country, to have a shared set of core values and norms guiding their member's behaviour. Both Hofstede (1980) and Schwartz (1994) attempted to identify national cultural dimensions that could be used to compare cultures Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006). Hofstede derived his framework empirically, while Schwartz developed his framework theoretically, Lee and Soutar(2006). Both scholars have empirically examined their frameworks using large‐scale multi‐country samples Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006). It was found by Magnusson et al (2008).that the cultural distance constructs based on Hofstede have strong convergent validity and cultural distance constructs based on Schwartz have the weakest validity, McSweeney(2002) questions whether culture can systematically cause differences in behaviour between people from different countries. - In doing so, he throws a challenge to all who use Hofstede's model or similar cultural models from the functionalist paradigm, such as those of Schwartz (1992)Williamson(2002) . Fischer et al. (2010) found that Hofstede identified four value dimensions at the country level but did not find matching dimensions at the individual level. Schwartz discriminated different sets of value constructs at individual and country-levels, based on separate analyses per level Fischer et al. (2010). According to Smith et al. (2002) their is a significant correlations (p<0.05) between Schwartz's (1999) three higher order dimensions and Hofstede's dimensions. Hofstede's individualism was positively correlated with Schwartz's autonomy‐embeddedness (r=0.64) and egalitarianism‐hierarchy (r=0.50) dimensions. Hofstede's power distance was negatively correlated with Schwartz's three dimensions (autonomy‐embeddedness (r=−0.52), egalitarianism‐hierarchy (r=−0.41), and harmony‐mastery (r=−0.29)). Hofstede's uncertainty avoidance was positively correlated with Schwartz's egalitarianism‐hierarchy (r=0.29) dimension.Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006). According to Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006)there is overlap between Schwartz and Hofstede's values. Using Kogut and Singh's (1988) formula, Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006) conducted an analysis and suggested that the Schwartz and Hofstede cultural frameworks are not congruent. Steenkamp (2001) found that Schwartz values included elements of culture that are not captured by Hofstede's values. Specifically, Steenkamp (2001) factor analysed Hofstede's (1980) and Schwartz's (1994) dimensions and found four factors, of which three were related to both Hofstede's and Schwartz's dimensions. However, one factor, egalitarianism versus hierarchy was only comprised of Schwartz's dimensions. This additional factor represented how people within a society consider the interests of others and how they coordinate with them. This factor was negatively related to Schwartz's hierarchy and positively to egalitarianism and harmony values. Specifically, egalitarianism suggests a society that emphasizes the transcendence of selfless interest to promote the welfare of others. Harmony suggests a society that emphasizes harmony with nature. Hierarchy suggests a society that emphasizes the legitimacy of unequal distribution of power, roles and resources. These dimensions appear to have elements that are not captured by Hofstede's dimensions', Lee and Soutar(2006)According to Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006) Schwartz's framework may be more appropriate than Hofstede's for use in non‐work related contexts. According to Ng, Lee and Soutar(2006) researchers intending to use cultural distance as an explanatory variable should carefully examine the basis or underlying dimensions behind their calculation, in order to capture the relevant differences. They should not only review Schwartz and Hofstede's dimension as potential bases, but also other cultural dimensions, including (Hall, 1976).(Parsons and Shils, 1951).(Kluckhon and Strodbeck, 1961)(House et al., 2004).Paternalism dimension which refer to the extent to which it is appropriate for managers to take a personal involvement in the private lives of workers (Dorfman and Howell, 1988).Finally, both Hofstede's and Schwartz's frameworks could be argued as obsolete, given that their data were collected 44 and 29 years ago, respectively. During this period, substantial modernisation has taken place in most of the surveyed countries. It has been argued that there have been significant shifts in cultural values (Fernandez et al., 1997; McDonagh, 1999). For instance, McDonagh (1999) claimed that modernisation brings about an increase in individualism values. Consistently, Ralston et al. (1999) found that new generation managers in China were more individualistic and tend to work more independently compared to their predecessors. Holden (2004) stressed that the concept of culture is complex and it is not appropriate to compress it into just a few dimensions. With the changing economic conditions and globalization the national culture evolution is likely to be effected (Zaheer, Schomaker, and Nachum, 2012) Society as a whole is suppose to experience a cultural change in the direction of more Americanised, global culture (Ritzer and Ryan, 2004) the shift of economic weight towards Asia will led to cultural convergence towards Asian values and beliefs in the near future (Sheth, 2006) resulting in decreased country differences in the scores of Hofstede's dimensions (Beugelsdijk,Maseland and Hoorn 2015). Drogendijk and Slangen (2006) found a positive correlation (0.48) between Hofstede and Schwartz from the Dutch perspective, whereas Ng et al. (2007) found a negative correlation (−0.34) from an Australian perspective.
despite significant criticism levied against the Hofstede measure, it is highly correlated with more recent operationalization's of CD/ID. suggest that the more contemporary cultural frameworks have provided only limited advancements compared with Hofstede's original work. Two primary criticisms against Hofstede's framework has been the lack of theoretical grounding (McSweeney, 2002) and the stability of culture since the time Hofstede collected his data. Oyserman et al.'s (2002) review concluded that culture may be even more stable than Hofstede himself believed to be the case. This is further supported by notable large‐scale replications supporting Hofstede's original work (Helmreich and Merritt, 1998; Hoppe, 1990).
Magnusson et al (2008) In fact, according to Cho and Padmanabhan (2005, p. 309) “no international business study can be considered complete unless there is an explicit variable controlling for cultural distance.” These findings have commonly relied on Kogut and Singh's (1988) CD index, which is based on Hofstede's cultural dimensions (Tihanyi et al., 2005).
Companies change their marketing activities to fit in different countries
...(download the rest of the essay above)